Single track dead end - emergency vehicles

[Chrisgr31]

I got a bit lost in the discussion between 2 knowledgeable posters. In the original post it states "The plot of land has permission to build a large house and the owner of the land owns all of the indents and turning circles and plans to fence to the boundary of his plot."

The implication appears to be that when planning consent was granted the passing points etc existed. However once the development is complete they won't s the owner plans to remove them. Presumably one needs to look at the original consent to see what the plans show to conclude whether they are part of the application. Is access to this house down the road as surely they are going to be just as badly affected by the lack of passing places?

[Equus]

Elysium said:

Having now seen your edit, I think we get to a very amusing end point.

If we assume that Building Regulations would prevent the construction of a fence across this land, because it must be maintained for fire access, then it follows that the land cannot be used by the owner for any other purpose.

You would have to conclude that the existing properties have some rights over the land. This particular 'user' would exclude the landowner from the land so those rights can't be in the form of an easement.

Why do you say that?

I think everyone has accepted, throughout the discussion, that the current properties using the private road could (and almost certainly do) have rights of access across it as some form of easement. It is the precise form and extent of this easement, and the cost of enforcing it by civil action in the courts that would be problematical for the OP.

An easement does not exclude the landowner from the land, and whilst, yes, it prevents him from permanently obstructing or building on it, it certainly doesn't prevent him using it for 'any other purpose'.

We're almost back to where we started: an easement does not equal adverse possession (in fact, they are almost mutually exclusive).

It's not at all unusual for B.Regs to control development in relation to proximity of a 'relevant boundary', of course (noting that a 'relevant boundary' can be different to both the 'curtilage' and/or the 'site of the building'). It happens all the time.

[Elysium]

Equus said:

Why do you say that?

I think everyone has accepted, throughout the discussion, that the current properties using the private road could (and almost certainly do) have rights of access across it as some form of easement. It is the precise form and extent of this easement, and the cost of enforcing it by civil action in the courts that would be problematical for the OP.

You are making a lot of assumptions in saying there is 'almost certainly' an easement. Not least the fact that we have no idea how long people have been using these areas for parking or turning.

Equus said:

An easement does not exclude the landowner from the land, and whilst, yes, it prevents him from permanently obstructing or building on it, it certainly doesn't prevent him using it for 'any other purpose'.

I am just following through your argument to its conclusion. You are suggesting that the Building Regulations could prevent this landowner from fencing off part of his own property because existing houses have somehow gained the right to rely on its use as a turning head for fire access.

If it is a fire access, then it will need to be kept clear. So the owner cannot park on it, build on it or keep it secure. It is not possible to grant this right as an easement because the owner would be dispossessed of his land as a result.

Equus said:

almost back to where we started: an easement does not equal adverse possession (in fact, they are almost mutually exclusive).

Precisely. if we imagine for a moment that this right somehow exists then it can't be an easement. So it must be something else ...

Equus said:

It's not at all unusual for B.Regs to control development in relation to proximity of a 'relevant boundary', of course (noting that a 'relevant boundary' can be different to both the 'curtilage' and/or the 'site of the building'). It happens all the time.

Are you making a point with this statement?

Edited by Elysium on Sunday 23 February 17:46

[Equus]

Elysium said:

You are making a lot of assumptions in saying there is 'almost certainly' an easement.

No, I'm making one rather small one, actually.

Are you seriously suggesting that the OP and all his neighbours would have bought their houses, knowing that their access was via a private road in 3rd party ownership, over which they had no legal right of way?

The rest of your post is nonsense.

[Elysium]

Equus said:

Elysium said:

You are making a lot of assumptions in saying there is 'almost certainly' an easement.

No, I'm making one rather small one, actually.

Are you seriously suggesting that the OP and all his neighbours would have bought their houses, knowing that their access was via a private road in 3rd party ownership, over which they had no legal right of way?

No. I am not even remotely suggesting that.

The OP said the road was private. My working assumption is that the owners of the houses also have ownership of the road or at least rights to use it.

The OP also said the road had 'indents and turning circles' which belong to the landowner on the far side, who intends to fence them off. My assumption there is that this means the owners of the houses do not have proven rights over these areas.

How do you arrive at the idea that the owners of the houses 'almost certainly' have an easement over the land adjacent to the road in the complete absence of any other information?

[Elysium]

Equus said:

The rest of your post is nonsense.

No. It just illustrates that your 'idea' that Building Regulations could prevent this landowner from fencing off his own land because someone else would then be unable to use it as a fire access does not stand up to any sort of rational scrutiny.

If this were true, then his ownership of the land would be 'illusory'.

[Equus]

Elysium said:

How do you arrive at the idea that the owners of the houses 'almost certainly' have an easement over the land adjacent to the road

In what fantasy do you live where you imagine that I suggested such a thing?

I am suggesting that there is almost certainly some sort of easement over the access road. When did I suggest that they had any easement over the land adjacent to it?

As I have said more than once, the problem is that such easements are often poorly defined, both in terms of their extent, and of the rights they confer.

Elysium said:

It just illustrates that your 'idea' that Building Regulations could prevent this landowner from fencing off his own land because someone else would then be unable to use it as a fire access does not stand up to any sort of rational scrutiny.

Would you like to comment on the bits of the Building Regulations that I quoted above, then?

It is you who is making the monumental leap that enforcement of a Building Regulation requirement somehow confers permanent rights on neighbouring landowners.

That's an absurd extrapolation, with no sensible basis.

[DozyGit]

I think the problem only exist if:
1. The OP has right of vehicular access over the lane
2. A lot of people are assuming if you can lay a road it's OK, I can try laying one through some back alley but that doesn't necessarily give me the rights to vehicular access.
3. There is no need for the appliance to drive in front of the house, a parallel street will suffice, and yes they can park up in the big house and aim a hose at the OP

My conclusion as typical in the UK, green with envy

[Elysium]

Equus said:

Elysium said:

How do you arrive at the idea that the owners of the houses 'almost certainly' have an easement over the land adjacent to the road

In what fantasy do you live where you imagine that I suggested such a thing?

I am suggesting that there is almost certainly some sort of easement over the access road. When did I suggest that they had any easement over the land adjacent to it?

As I have said more than once, the problem is that such easements are often poorly defined, both in terms of their extent, and of the rights they confer.

Ok - In which case I misread you.

Equus said:

Elysium said:

It just illustrates that your 'idea' that Building Regulations could prevent this landowner from fencing off his own land because someone else would then be unable to use it as a fire access does not stand up to any sort of rational scrutiny.

Would you like to comment on the bits of the Building Regulations that I quoted above, then?

It is you who is making the monumental leap that enforcement of a Building Regulation requirement somehow confers permanent rights on neighbouring landowners.

That's an absurd extrapolation, with no sensible basis.

No you are just not thinking deeply enough about the consequences of the 'idea' you have presented.

We don't know when these houses were built, when the road was built, if it always had these indents or if they were added at some later stage. But you have come up with the notion that Building Regulations as a matter of law could ensure that the indents would be retained for the benefit of the occupants of the houses.

The logical conclusion is that the Regulations render the original ownership of the indents illusory. Which is of course nonsense and demonstrates why the argument you have come up with about the 'reach' of Building Regulations beyond the application site fails.

[Equus]

Elysium said:

No you are just not thinking deeply enough about the consequences of the 'idea' you have presented.

I don't need to, because it's not an 'idea'.

I'm merely quoting what the regulations say, in black and white. Regulation B5 exists, and Regulation 3(2) says it applies wherever it would impact on a building.

If you'd care to dispute the wording of those regulations, we're listening.

You, on the other hand, are making up 'consequences' that simply have no foundation:

Elysium said:

If we assume that Building Regulations would prevent the construction of a fence across this land, because it must be maintained for fire access, then it follows that the land cannot be used by the owner for any other purpose.

You would have to conclude that the existing properties have some rights over the land. This particular 'user' would exclude the landowner from the land so those rights can't be in the form of an easement.

Can you explain to me how you're making the mental leap from the inability to erect a fence to being unable to use land for any other purpose (and any other purpose than what)?

Can you then explain how you're making the further leap that the inability to erect a fence somehow excludes the landowner from his land?

[Elysium]

Equus said:

Elysium said:

No you are just not thinking deeply enough about the consequences of the 'idea' you have presented.

I don't need to, because it's not an 'idea'.

I'm merely quoting what the regulations say, in black and white. Regulation B5 exists, and Regulation 3(2) says it applies wherever it would impact on a building.

If you'd care to dispute the wording of those regulations, we're listening.

The trouble here is that you are reading bits of the legislation out of context. This the section you quoted from:

The Building Regulations 2010 said:

Meaning of building work
3.—(1) In these Regulations “building work” means—

(a)the erection or extension of a building;
(b)the provision or extension of a controlled service or fitting in or in connection with a building;
(c)the material alteration of a building, or a controlled service or fitting, as mentioned in paragraph (2);
(d)work required by regulation 6 (requirements relating to material change of use);
(e)the insertion of insulating material into the cavity wall of a building;
(f)work involving the underpinning of a building;
(g)work required by regulation 22 (requirements relating to a change of energy status);
(h)work required by regulation 23 (requirements relating to thermal elements);
(i)work required by regulation 28 (consequential improvements to energy performance).

(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these Regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result—

(a)in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or
(b)in a building or controlled service or fitting which before the work commenced did not comply with a relevant requirement, being more unsatisfactory in relation to such a requirement.
(3) In paragraph (2) “relevant requirement” means any of the following applicable requirements of Schedule 1, namely—

Part A (structure)
paragraph B1 (means of warning and escape)
paragraph B3 (internal fire spread—structure)
paragraph B4 (external fire spread)
paragraph B5 (access and facilities for the fire service)
Part M (access to and use of buildings).

3(1) defines Building Work, which includes material alterations of a Building, Controlled Service or Fitting

3(2) is there purely to define what would constitute a 'material alteration' for the purposes of clause 3(1)(c). It states that a 'material alteration' would include a situation where the thing being altered did not originally comply with Regulations and is made worse by the alteration.

Although it is very obvious that this is purely there to define a 'material alteration' to an existing building, you are trying to present an argument that it would somehow relate to an alteration to the access for an entirely different building, outside of the development site.

Of course in this case the Building Regulation application will not relate to the alteration of an existing building. It will be for the erection of a new building as per clause 3(1)(a). So everything in section (2) is irrelevant and your argument fails.

Equus said:

You, on the other hand, are making up 'consequences' that simply have no foundation:

Elysium said:

If we assume that Building Regulations would prevent the construction of a fence across this land, because it must be maintained for fire access, then it follows that the land cannot be used by the owner for any other purpose.

You would have to conclude that the existing properties have some rights over the land. This particular 'user' would exclude the landowner from the land so those rights can't be in the form of an easement.

Can you explain to me how you're making the mental leap from the inability to erect a fence to being unable to use land for any other purpose (and any other purpose than what)?

Can you then explain how you're making the further leap that the inability to erect a fence somehow excludes the landowner from his land?

The starting point is that the existing residents have no rights over the 'indent' land, which is owned by the developer.

If your suggestion is correct and the 'indent' cannot be altered because it would make fire access more difficult for the neighbouring landowners then if follows that the Building Regulations are capable of creating prescriptive rights over an applicants land.

That is clearly not the case.

If we imagine that these rights might somehow be established, then its clear the land owner will not be able to use his land in any way. It would need to be kept permanently clear of any plant, buildings, vehicles, fencing etc. so that it was available for its new purpose.

As I am sure you know easements can only exist where the nature of the 'user' would allow the landowner to still have an interest. In the example created by your argument there is no way of using the land, so the ownership becomes illusory. Which in turn means it cannot be established as an easement. Because the house owners would be in factual posession of the land.

I found that amusing that you went to great lengths to argue that adverse possesion could not be relevant to this case, then came up with a scenario that required it.

Anyway, thank you for the debate on what was an otherwise dull day. As is often the way, this discussion has strayed off topic to a fairly unlikely, esoteric and narrow point. As a result I am going to bow out because it does nothing to help the OP.

The best course of action for him is to look at the permission and application documents on the planning portal. Without additional information all other suggestions are redundant.

[Equus]

Elysium said:

If we imagine that these rights might somehow be established, then its clear the land owner will not be able to use his land in any way. It would need to be kept permanently clear of any plant, buildings, vehicles, fencing etc. so that it was available for its new purpose.

As I am sure you know easements can only exist where the nature of the 'user' would allow the landowner to still have an interest. In the example created by your argument there is no way of using the land, so the ownership becomes illusory. Which in turn means it cannot be established as an easement. Because the house owners would be in factual possession of the land.

Complete and utter nonsense. You're taking far too narrow a view of land use. Just because you can't build on it, doesn't mean that there is no way of using it.

And by your definition, any land that is subject to an easement would be 'in factual possession' of whoever draws benefit from that easement, because any easement prevents you from building on or obstructing it.

I've never heard such twaddle!

[Elysium]

Equus said:

Elysium said:

If we imagine that these rights might somehow be established, then its clear the land owner will not be able to use his land in any way. It would need to be kept permanently clear of any plant, buildings, vehicles, fencing etc. so that it was available for its new purpose.

As I am sure you know easements can only exist where the nature of the 'user' would allow the landowner to still have an interest. In the example created by your argument there is no way of using the land, so the ownership becomes illusory. Which in turn means it cannot be established as an easement. Because the house owners would be in factual possession of the land.

Complete and utter nonsense. You're taking far too narrow a view of land use. Just because you can't build on it, doesn't mean that there is no way of using it.

And by your definition, any land that is subject to an easement would be 'in factual possession' of whoever draws benefit from that easement, because any easement prevents you from building on or obstructing it.

I've never heard such twaddle!

Here is the legal precedant:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1051....

I assume you didn't bother countering the point on Building Regs because you knew you were wrong!

[Pheo]

Taking a different tack while you guys get your handbags out, one thing I became aware of is that land registry property boundaries are not absolute; they generally rely on the obvious features in place at the time. This is plastered all over the LR website on every plan.

Therefore, take good evidence (possibly via a suitably qualified surveyor?) of the existence of the passing places and turning circles, and then utilize these to claim that the developer has infact encroached on the road because the boundary is not established as being the road, but includes features on the ground.

I wonder if such a letter written well might be enough to make them back off?

Some photos/a map would help with regards to how feasible all of this is too.

[Equus]

Elysium said:

Here is the legal precedant:

I assume you didn't bother countering the point on Building Regs because you knew you were wrong!

You read the bit about 'exclusive prescriptive rights'? The bit that doesn't apply in the slightest to the situation under consideration?

No, I didn't bother countering the point on Building Regulations, because I don't have the time to debate with someone who has already made his mind up not to listen.

[Equus]

Pheo said:

Some photos/a map would help with regards to how feasible all of this is too.

I think we've probably long since scared the OP away!

As has been said previously, the Planning Approval documentation would be the first step to assessing the whole situation, but he is unlikely to want to publish that information on a public forum.

[Pheo]

Equus said:

I think we've probably long since scared the OP away!

As has been said previously, the Planning Approval documentation would be the first step to assessing the whole situation, but he is unlikely to want to publish that information on a public forum.

I think I heard them screaming as they ran over yonder hills

Still, sounds like a crappy move from the new developer.

[Elysium]

Pheo said:

Taking a different tack while you guys get your handbags out, one thing I became aware of is that land registry property boundaries are not absolute; they generally rely on the obvious features in place at the time. This is plastered all over the LR website on every plan.

Therefore, take good evidence (possibly via a suitably qualified surveyor?) of the existence of the passing places and turning circles, and then utilize these to claim that the developer has infact encroached on the road because the boundary is not established as being the road, but includes features on the ground.

I wonder if such a letter written well might be enough to make them back off?

Some photos/a map would help with regards to how feasible all of this is too.

It does seem odd that the residents are able to treat these features as part of the road, whilst they are apparently owned by the developer.

Early on I posted that understanding the back story to this could be important. They could be old entrances to the developers property or something else entirely.

Equus and I have filled several pages with a somewhat pointless (but at times enjoyable ) debate about the possibility that the house owners could have acquired legal rights over the land.

There is not enough info from the OP to know if this is worth exploring.

[Elysium]

Equus said:

Elysium said:

Here is the legal precedant:

I assume you didn't bother countering the point on Building Regs because you knew you were wrong!

You read the bit about 'exclusive prescriptive rights'? The bit that doesn't apply in the slightest to the situation under consideration?

Of course. That’s why I posted it.

A fire tender access is about as exclusive a land use as you can get

[Equus]

Elysium said:

Of course. That’s why I posted it.

A fire tender access is about as exclusive a land use as you can get

Riiiiight... of course.

What was I thinking.

I mean, obviously a fire tender occupies the land much more intensively than someone parking on it 9 hours a day, 7 days a week.

You're a complete genius. Why didn't I see that?